lol i think ive pitched a bit above your head im sorry.
Think about how old you are and how much living in a society has benefited you, from roads to healthcare to water over your entire life. The only reason we are able to communicate with each other is because of the benefits of our societies.
Not "meaningless".
Just "not how anyone on this Earth gets rich in the first place". All those factors are complete nonsequiturs.
You're trying to connect wealth to some higher value of character, and that's just flatly ridiculous on its face. You'd have us believe that Donald Trump is a more-virtuous and more-deserving human being than, say, the person running the local food bank and soup kitchen that serves the needy.
We can either create a just economic system from the outset and eliminate poverty thereby, or we can tax those who exploit the current system to make up the difference.Nah, fuck them all, make them pay.
Or you can admit that you intentionally desire that the hardship and suffering tied to poverty continue, for its own sake.
And if you're willing to come to the table on that "just economic system", you're gonna have to recognize that it's going to vastly reduce how much money the top quintile can make compared to the bottom quintile, as a matter of necessity.
No, I'm not trying to say they have higher levels of character, merely that they are indeed people. And therein lies the problem, not all wealthy people exploit the system. Not all wealthy people are evil assholes worthy of disdain.
As it stands, the wealthy already pay a higher percentage of their incomes than the other earnings groups. The problem is that so many people want to put further burden on those wealthy, and don't want to shoulder any more for themselves. That's what selfishness looks like.
Wealth is only created through exploitation of that system.
If it was not aggregated by the currently-wealthy, it was inherited from some ancestor who did so and passed it down to them.
Wealth is only ever aggregated by exploitation of others. The entire capitalist system is fundamentally and irrevocably exploitative in nature.
As many times as you repeat this lie, it's never going to become true. You're just engaging in baseless slander.As it stands, the wealthy already pay a higher percentage of their incomes than the other earnings groups. The problem is that so many people want to put further burden on those wealthy, and don't want to shoulder any more for themselves. That's what selfishness looks like.
That's not true. Wealth can be achieved as a result of that system. Some people do work harder, save more, and simply make better decisions. And yes, this can become a multiplicative increase, or even an exponential increase over time.
As for my claim about taxation, the numbers were already provided. Calling it a lie doesn't refute the numbers that were provided. They come from the United States Government. This is little more than you throwing a temper tantrum, steeped in willful ignorance.
To put it simply, in order to balance the budget on the backs of the wealthy (the top 1%), you'd need to triple their tax burden. Now, I know you don't really give a shit, and you'd be fine with that. But, that is about as fucking selfish as you can get. And no... that's not including all the extra trillions from the Covid bailout.
Last edited by Machismo; 2021-04-17 at 10:30 PM.
Gatekeeping anarchists in this context is just simple restatement of why you aren't that particular variety of ancap. It's like every political movement ever. I'm not <x> kind of <y> because <x> isn't even truly <y>.
Same response. Any useful definition of anarchist includes various "after the elimination of the state ..." It's a very narcissistic idea that because you particularly think some other flavor leads to bad stuff, that it can't be considered a choice on the spectrum.
The same goes with libertarians, for that matter.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Last edited by JohnBrown1917; 2021-04-17 at 11:02 PM.
Well, the education system and basic logic failed you. I hope you didn't have to pay too much for that because it was wasted money.
It has been explained to you but for some reason, you suddenly need very specific numbers to be convinced that an educated populace benefits the wealthy more than the individual.
We're on a level of how-does-shit-work right now. Page 130 and you come along with trickle-down economics. You are so deep in GOP arguments you might as well tattoo MAGA on your forehead.
But apart from that, the link showed you more than just taxes, it showed you expenses per capita, especially healthcare and education, where the US is lagging despite paying more. So there's where you can save a good amount of money if you'd introduce better regulations. For some weird shit reason, you also seem to have no problem with public school funding being tied to property tax. You know, another thing where the wealthy benefit more than the poor.
No, I don't think Americans earning the same should be paying more because your system does not provide for the stuff our system provides. Your government subsidies wealthy people way more than the poor, while they are paying less in taxes than in most other western countries, so unless you want to introduce the stuff we have, probably not since you want less government, then for fairness sake the ones gaining the most should pay considerably more than they do now.
So are you hitting me with trickle-down economics again or do you understand that you're in I-am-so-fucking-wrong-land-it-is-embarrassing?